Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (195821)	8/7/2006 6:29:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I never claimed the UN was subservient to the US, but your arguments imply that you consider the reverse. I didn't say the UN had to agree with what the US wants, but apparently you think the US has to follow what the UN says is the correct move. As for the "international law" angle, the US didn't violate any international agreements when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The government of the former, was tied in to and throughly connected with a group that had been attacking the US for years, and finally got a massive counterattack after 9/11. The later was after frequent violations of a ceasefire agreement, that was initiated after Iraq had started a war. Also, for those so concerned with UN resolutions, resolutiuon 678 authorized use of "all necessary means" and 1441 refers to 678 and also stated that that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687, and that the ceasefire granted under Resolution 687 was binding only insofar as Iraq was willing to hew to the terms of that ceasefire. It also called for "serious consequences" if Iraq didn't comply.